View source for Past, Present, and Future of Cannabis Laboratory Testing and Regulation in the United States/Overview of the cannabis industry in the United States/Other areas of concern

===1.5 Other areas of concern===
When examining the current state of the U.S. cannabis industry, it's important to note a few additional areas of concern that impact it, again tightly linked to federal regulations (which are discussed extensively in the next section): banking, advertising, and data management. Issues related to these topics continue to limit how state-based grow-ops, dispensaries, and testing laboratories are funded and operated. 

====1.5.1 Banking====
Since the U.S. federal government still considers marijuana to be illegal, by extension banks and credit unions—which are regulated by a patchwork collection of federal (and state) laws—put themselves into potentially dangerous territory by accepting money from depositors engaging in federally illegal activities; the bank can be punished by federal institutions such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).<ref name="HillBanks15">{{cite journal |title=Banks, Marijuana, and Federalism |journal=Case Western Reserve Federal Law Review |author=Hill, J.A. |volume=65 |issue=3 |pages=597–647 |year=2015 |url=https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol65/iss3/7}}</ref> In an attempt to ease the concerns of industry players as well as banks in states that had implemented legalization efforts, the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) released a guidance document in February 2014 that "does not grant immunity from prosecution or civil penalties to banks that serve legal marijuana businesses" but rather "directs prosecutors and regulators to give priority to cases only where financial institutions have failed to adhere to the guidance."<ref name="KovaleskiUS14">{{cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/us/us-issues-marijuana-guidelines-for-banks.html |title=U.S. Issues Marijuana Guidelines for Banks |author=Kovaleski, S.F. |work=The New York Times |publisher=The New York Times Corporation |date=14 February 2014 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref><ref name="FinCEN_BSA14">{{cite web |url=https://www.fincen.gov/resources/statutes-regulations/guidance/bsa-expectations-regarding-marijuana-related-businesses |title=BSA Expectations Regarding Marijuana-Related Businesses |author=Financial Crimes Enforcement Network |publisher=U.S. Department of the Treasury |date=14 February 2014 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref> However, the guidance has remained just that: guidance; it doesn't prevent federal law enforcement or regulating agencies from taking action. An August 2016 attempt to reclassify marijuana into a lower classification than Schedule I failed<ref name="LegerMari16">{{cite web |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/08/11/dea-marijuana-remains-illegal-under-federal-law/88550804/ |title=Marijuana to remain illegal under federal law, DEA says |author=Leger, D.L. |work=USA. Today |publisher=Gannett Company |date=11 August 2016 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref><ref name="JosephDEA16">{{cite web |url=https://www.statnews.com/2016/08/10/marijuana-medical-research-dea/ |title=DEA decision keeps major restrictions in place on marijuana research |author=Joseph, A. |work=STAT |publisher=Boston Globe Media |date=10 August 2016 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref>, keeping the FinCEN guidance in place as a recommendation for how federal authorities should enforce existing law. 

According to an Associated Press report in April 2016, the guidance has had some sort of impact, with banks and credit unions willing to handle any money associated with marijuana, increasing from 51 in March 2014 to 301 in March 2016<ref name="HansenBanking16">{{cite web |url=https://apnews.com/article/804ae396daab4ba98f814b186f872ef6 |title=Banking woes easing for some legal pot businesses |author=Hansen, K.; Johnson, G. |work=Associated Press |publisher=Associated Press |date=20 April 2016 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref>, and up again to 411 in March 2018<ref name="AngellMoreBanks18">{{cite web |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomangell/2018/06/14/more-banks-working-with-marijuana-businesses-despite-federal-moves/#4d828ed21b1b |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20220128064459/https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomangell/2018/06/14/more-banks-working-with-marijuana-businesses-despite-federal-moves/?sh=363e33581b1b |title=More Banks Working With Marijuana Businesses, Despite Federal Moves |author=Angell, T. |work=Forbes |publisher=Forbes Media, LLC |date=14 June 2018 |archivedate=28 January 2022 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref> and 706 in March 2021.<ref name="FinCENMari21">{{cite web |url=https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/303751_MJ%20Banking%20Update%203rd%20QTR%20FY2021_Public.pdf |format=PDF |title=Marijuana Banking Update |publisher=FinCEN |date=30 June 2021 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref> However, this hasn't prevented those in states with newly minted medical and recreational marijuana legalization laws from being worried about how cannabis money will be handled, particularly with wavering stances across multiple Federal government branches. California, which in November 2016 legalized recreational use of marijuana beginning in 2018, petitioned the administration to clarify its policy early on. "We have a year to develop a system that works in California and which addresses the many issues that exist as a result of the federal-state legal conflict," wrote California Treasurer John Chiang to Trump. "Uncertainty about the position of your administration creates even more of a challenge."<ref name="BloodCali16">{{cite web |url=https://apnews.com/article/d54ea614db274238986a8e0d77dbb147 |title=California treasurer asks Trump for guidance on pot, banking |author=Blood, M.R. |work=Associated Press |publisher=Associated Press |date=02 December 2016 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref> An attempt by the state in the summer of 2018 (Senate Bill 930) to "license privately financed banks that would issue checks to [cannabis-related] businesses to pay rent and state and local taxes and fees" was rejected, complicating the matter further.<ref name="MyersCalif18">{{cite web |url=https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-legislature-bills-roundup-20180816-story.html |title=California lawmakers reject marijuana banking plan and panic buttons for hotel workers in a frenzy of Sacramento action |author=Myers, J. |work=Los Angeles Times |publisher=Los Angeles Times Communications, LLC |date=16 August 2018 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref> However, California's Department of Business Oversight offered some minor respite in the fall of 2019 in the form of its Cannabis Banking Guidance, which "offers a comprehensive compliance framework for [California's] financial institutions and demonstrates that there is momentum around finding a workable solution to effectively provide banking services to cannabis-related businesses."<ref name="BoomsteinCali19">{{cite web |url=https://www.manatt.com/Insights/Newsletters/Financial-Services-Law/California-DBO-Offers-Guidance-on-Cannabis-Banking |title=California DBO Offers Guidance on Cannabis Banking |author=Boomstein, A.L.; Miller, C.D.; Owen, J.L. |publisher=Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP |date=30 October 2019 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref>

Similar legalization changes in Massachusetts prompted its senator, Elizabeth Warren, along with nine other senators, to write to FinCEN in early 2017 requesting even clearer, more friendly guidance for marijuana vendors.<ref name="LeBlancUSSen17">{{cite web |url=https://lasvegassun.com/news/2017/jan/02/us-sen-warren-seeks-to-pull-pot-shops-out-of-banki/ |title=US Sen. Warren seeks to pull pot shops out of banking limbo |author=LeBlanc, S. |work=Las Vegas Sun |publisher=Greenspun Media Group |date=02 January 2017 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref> Yet it remains to be seen if entities outside of grow-ops and dispensaries will see banking relief. In particular, testing laboratories continue to struggle with managing cash flow and acquiring bank lending for their operations<ref name="LampachQA13">{{cite web |url=https://mjbizdaily.com/qa-with-steep-hill-lab-ceo-david-lampach-cannabis-testing-market-could-hit-40m-in-2-years/ |title=Q&A With CEO of Steep Hill Halent: US Cannabis Testing Market Could Hit $40M by 2016 |work=Marijuana Business Daily |author=Lampach, D. |publisher=Anne Holland Ventures, Inc |date=20 November 2013 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref><ref name="MartinProfit16">{{cite web |url=http://www.cacannabislabs.com/ |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20180202172902/http://www.cacannabislabs.com/ |title=Profitability in the Cannabis Laboratory Industry |work=Association of Commercial Cannabis Laboratories |author=Martin, R.W. |publisher=Association of Commercial Cannabis Laboratories |date=May 2016 |archivedate=02 February 2018 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref><ref name="TulsiABright16">{{cite web |url=https://www.labmanager.com/labs-less-ordinary/today-s-cannabis-research-market-4338 |title=A Bright Future for Cannabis Testing Services |work=Lab Manager |author=Tulsi, B.B. |publisher=LabX Media Group |date=03 October 2016 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref>, causing some to believe consolidation of such labs will occur before the industry can really even take off.<ref name="LampachQA13" /><ref name="DigiPathAUnique16">{{cite web |url=http://digipath.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Digipath-Company-Report.pdf |format=PDF |title=A Unique Investment Vehicle in Laboratory Testing |publisher=DigiPath, Inc |date=October 2016 |pages=36 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref> In early 2018, one of three testing laboratories in Alaska was forced to suspend its operations after Wells Fargo said it would foreclose on their space if they did not move out, demonstrating the continued difficulties and tensions laboratories are facing with banks.<ref name="APAlaska18">{{cite web |url=https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/marijuana/alaska-marijuana-testing-lab-closes-leaving-only-2-in-state-2/ |title=Alaska marijuana-testing lab closes, leaving only 2 in state |author=The Associated Press |work=The Seattle Times |publisher=Seattle Times Company |date=01 April 2018 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref>

In September 2019, what was thought to the be the best chance to update cannabis banking regulation—in the form of the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act—saw overwhelming approval in the U.S. House of Representatives. The [[SAFE Banking Act]] would prevent federal banking regulators from cancelling deposit insurance, penalizing banking institutions, and incentivizing a bank to not do business with cannabis businesses, among other actions. This would mean banks wouldn't see federal retaliation for complying with state-mandated cannabis law. However, the proposed legislation was inevitably held up in the Senate in early 2020, primarily due to the efforts of Senate Banking Committee Chair Mike Crapo<ref name="BoomsteinBurnt20">{{cite web |url=https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/burnt-out-safe-banking-act-faces-senate-91591/ |title=Burnt Out? SAFE Banking Act Faces Senate Opposition |author=Boomstein, A.; Miller, C.D.; Sabine, A. |work=JD Supra |date=20 January 2020 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref><ref name="SchillerSAFE20">{{cite web |url=https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/article/safe-banking-act-house-supporters-urge-senate-to-approve-bill/ |title=SAFE Banking Act’s House Co-Sponsors Urge Senate to Approve Bill |author=Schiller, M. |work=Cannabis Business Times |date=23 January 2020 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref>, and the support of 12 other lawmakers.<ref name="JaegerTwelve20">{{cite web |url=https://www.marijuanamoment.net/twelve-gop-lawmakers-thank-senate-chairman-for-delaying-marijuana-banking-bill/ |title=Twelve GOP Lawmakers Thank Senate Chairman For Delaying Marijuana Banking Bill |author=Jaeger, K. |work=Marijuana Moment |date=13 February 2020 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref> However, in February 2020, Senators noted they were "close to finding common ground to getting everyone signed off to move this forward."<ref name="AdlinDeal20">{{cite web |url=https://www.marijuanamoment.net/deal-on-marijuana-banking-bill-is-close-gop-senator-says/ |title=Deal On Marijuana Banking Bill Is ‘Close,’ GOP Senator Says |author=Adlin, B. |work=Marijuana Moment |date=25 February 2020 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref>  Ultimately, the SAFE provisions made their way into the HEROES Act COVID-19 relief bill, which passed in the U.S. House in May 2020<ref name="WilliamsSurprise20">{{cite web |url=https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/05/17/surprise-theres-cannabis-reform-legislation-in-the.aspx |title=Surprise! There's Cannabis Reform Legislation in the Latest COVID-19 Relief Bill |work=The Motley Fool |author=Williams, S. |date=17 May 2020 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref>, as well as another proposed bill in October.<ref name="NJCTheMost20">{{cite web |url=https://www.nj.com/marijuana/2020/10/the-most-important-nj-cannabis-stories-this-week-decriminalization-bill-stuck-new-women-led-organization-safe-act-has-a-chance.html |title=The most important N.J. cannabis stories this week: Decriminalization bill stuck, new women-led organization, SAFE Act has a chance |author=NJ Cannabis Insider staff |work=nj.com |date=02 October 2020 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref><ref name="CUNAHouse20">{{cite web |url=https://news.cuna.org/articles/118520-house-passes-updated-heroes-act-with-cdfi-funding-safe-banking-act |title=House passes updated HEROES Act with CDFI funding, SAFE Banking Act |publisher=Credit Union National Association |date=01 October 2020 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref> Those attempts failed within the Senate, and an additional push to include the SAFE Banking Act provisions in the 2020 end-of-year COVID-19 stimulus failed.<ref name="SkinnerExlus20">{{cite web |url=https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/exclusion-of-the-safe-banking-act-in-38523/ |title=Exclusion of the Safe Banking Act in Coronavirus Relief Doesn’t Mean It Won’t Pass in 2021 |author=Skinner, K. |work=JD Supra |date=24 December 2020 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref> Additional attempts have been made to reintroduce SAFE in both 2021 and 2022, having passed the House a total of six times as of July 2022. The latest attempt to pass SAFE has been through including it with the Harnessing Opportunities by Pursuing Expungement (HOPE) Act "to give SAFE the social equity component it needs to make it to the Senate floor."<ref name="RobinsonCanna22">{{cite web |url=https://www.natlawreview.com/article/cannabis-banking-will-safe-banking-act-finally-pass |title=Cannabis Banking: Will the SAFE Banking Act Finally Pass? |author=Robinson, J.H.; Lomax, S.D.; Steineker, W. |work=The National Law Review |date=21 June 2022 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref>

====1.5.2 Advertising====
Advertising of marijuana products is another area of concern, though the regulations and laws regarding it are less clear. When it comes to television and radio broadcasting and its associated advertising, a federally granted broadcasting license stands to be lost, care of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The trouble is, it's not clear if the FCC would act against broadcasters; the FCC hasn't issued guidance in the same way FinCEN has. "I don’t think anybody knows, and that’s the problem," said California Broadcasters Association President Joe Berry in an August 2016 report published by the The Sacramento Bee. "Without a clear indication [from the FCC on marijuana advertising], the vast majority of broadcasters are going to stay away from this issue."<ref name="WhiteIfCali16">{{cite web |url=http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article96040082.html |title=If California legalizes pot, will TV ads be far behind? |author=White, J.B. |work=The Sacramento Bee |publisher=The McClatchy Company |date=17 August 2016 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref> California, of course, made recreational marijuana legal, and its proposed law sought to address the issue of advertising, including "a provision restricting TV and radio ads so they are not targeted to minors," while also addressing the authority of the FCC to enforce regardless.<ref name="McGreevyQA16">{{cite web |url=https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-proposition-64-marijuana-legalization-qa-20161030-snap-20161029-story.html |title=Q&A: Proposition 64 would legalize recreational use of marijuana though it's illegal under federal law. How will that work? |author=McGreevy, P. |work=Los Angeles Times |publisher=tronc, Inc |date=30 October 2016 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref> Additional changes occurred in California in the form of Assembly Bill 2899, updating how licensees can and can not advertise cannabis and cannabis products.<ref name="MalsburyCali18">{{cite web |url=https://www.cannalawblog.com/california-cannabis-advertising-changes-coming/ |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20201109032232/https://harrisbricken.com/cannalawblog/california-cannabis-advertising-changes-coming/ |title=California Cannabis Advertising: Changes Coming? |author=Malsbury, A. |work=Canna Law Blog |publisher=Harris Bricken |date=27 August 2018 |archivedate=09 November 2020 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref>

Other forms of advertising also remain problematic. In late November 2015, the United States Postal Service (USPS) out of Portland, Oregon published its interpretation of federal law regarding "mailpieces containing advertisements about marijuana," regarding it illegal to distribute certain forms of marijuana advertisement while citing 21 U.S. Code § 843(c).<ref name="ReinThePot15">{{cite web |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/12/21/the-pot-business-may-be-legal-but-newspapers-cant-run-ads-for-it-the-u-s-postal-service-says/ |title=The pot business may be legal, but newspapers can’t run ads for it, the U.S. Postal Service says |author=Rein, L. |work=The Washington Post |publisher=WP Company, LLC |date=21 December 2015 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref> The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has, controversially, also gotten involved, stating that trademarking of a "brand controlled substances or related paraphernalia that are illegal to possess or sell" legally doesn't fit within a trademark's commercial viability because at the federal level marijuana is not legal for commerce.<ref name="OxenfordAccepting16">{{cite web |url=https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2016/12/articles/accepting-advertising-for-marijuana-or-marijuana-paraphernalia-the-trademark-office-rules-on-a-related-issue-that-provides-more-reason-for-caution/ |title=Accepting Advertising for Marijuana or Marijuana Paraphernalia: The Trademark Office Rules on a Related Issue that Provides More Reason For Caution |author=Oxenford, D. |work=Broadcast Law Blog |date=13 December 2016 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref> (Legal experts such as Dariush Adli suggest "creative ways" of getting around this, from registering trademarks in multiple states to registering "non-cannabis merchandise in order to generate some federal protection for their mark."<ref name="AdliObtain16">{{cite web |url=http://adlilaw.blogspot.com/2016/12/obtaining-trademark-protection-for_9.html |title=Obtaining Trademark Protection for Cannabis Businesses |author=Adli, D. |publisher=ADLI Law Group |date=21 December 2016 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref>) Even billboards have at times been an issue, with California's state lawmakers proposing new regulations on billboard-based marijuana advertising weeks after the state passed its recreational legalization laws.<ref name="McGreevyPotAds16">{{cite web |url=http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-pot-ads-snap-20161221-story.html |title=Pot ads along highways? Lawmakers wrangle over legalization's consequences |author=McGreevy, P. |work=Los Angeles Times |publisher=tronc, Inc |date=21 December 2016 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref> And state laws, such as those found in Alaska, can create their own set of challenges in staying legal with marijuana advertising.<ref name="AndrewsGaps16">{{cite web |url=https://www.adn.com/alaska-marijuana/2016/12/26/gaps-in-alaska-marijuana-advertising-rules-cause-worry/ |title=Gaps in Alaska marijuana ad rules cause worry |author=Andrews, L. |work=Alaska Dispatch News |publisher=Alaska Dispatch Publishing |date=27 December 2016 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref> Even Canada, which legalized recreational use of marijuana in the fall of 2018, has strict advertising rules laid out by Health Canada, with harsh penalties for violators.<ref name="CeccoHowDo18">{{cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/06/canada-weed-legalisation-cannabis-marijuana-vendors-marketing-tactics |title=How do you market weed when you can't market weed? |author=Cecco, L. |work=The Guardian |publisher=Guardian News |date=06 June 2018 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref> This has resulted in some cannabis businesses seeking advertising loopholes; one such example can be found in the U.S. state of Colorado, where cannabis companies have taken to sponsoring highways through the state's Clean Colorado program.<ref name="APPotShops20">{{cite web |url=https://apnews.com/article/marijuana-us-news-denver-oddities-boulder-c908e9fcdeae3c502d5252e182bafa73 |title=Pot shops turn to highway sponsor signs amid strict ad rules |work=Associated Press |date=16 February 2020 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref>

Despite all this, some financial consultants have believed marijuana marketing will become more prevalent. In 2017, GreenWave Advisors' Matthew Karnes estimated cannabis marketing spending would jump to $75 million by 2021.<ref name="StilsonWhyMari17">{{cite web |url=http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/why-marijuana-marketing-will-be-bigger-ever-year-175246 |title=Why Marijuana Marketing Will Be Bigger Than Ever This Year |author=Stilson, J. |work=Adweek |publisher=Adweek, LLC |date=03 January 2017 |accessdate=25 January 2017}}</ref> Karnes may have been off on that prediction, but as of July 2022, new attempts to allow greater permissiveness of cannabis advertising continue to appear. For example, in June 2022, language was added to a proposed FCC-involved appropriations bill that would prevent "any of the funds appropriated to the agency for the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1 to deny broadcasters a license renewal or station sale application, or require an early license renewal application to be filed."<ref name="StaffMari22">{{cite web |url=https://mjbizdaily.com/marijuana-tv-ads-might-be-protected-from-fcc-under-new-bill-in-congress/ |title=Marijuana TV ads might be protected from FCC under new bill in Congress |author=MJBizDaily Staff |work=MJBizDaily |date=30 June 2022 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref><ref name="ColeHouse22">{{cite web |url=https://www.law360.com/articles/1506269/house-bill-would-stop-fcc-from-weeding-out-cannabis-ads |title=House Bill Would Stop FCC From Weeding Out Cannabis Ads |author=Cole, C. |work=Law360 |date=28 June 2022 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref> It remains to be seen if this language will remain in the final approved appropriations bill, however.

====1.5.3 Insurance====
[[File:Jackson Apple Festival (29831971922).jpg|right|250px]]Insurance needs for cannabis businesses are being discussed more as the legalization effort continues to expand across the U.S. and other countries. In the U.S. at least, a number of factors has slowed these discussions given the plant's illegal federal status, including limited data on its health impacts, the losses associated with running such businesses, and a lack of understanding the appropriate claims milestones to use. This lack of data and initial hesitance has resulted in overall caution by the insurance industry, issuing mostly basic policies with insufficient coverage.<ref name="AmWINSFromSeed19">{{cite web |url=https://www.amwins.com/docs/default-source/insights/client-advisory_top-5_issues_impacting_the_cannabis_insurance_industry-9-19.pdf?sfvrsn=72f5f65f_8 |title=From Seed to Sale: The Top Five Issues Impacting the Cannabis Insurance Industry |author=AmWINS Group, Inc |date=September 2019 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref> These fears—including the fear of prosecution for providing services to cannabis businesses—aren't limited to the U.S. either, with, for example, concerns that the [[Proceeds of Crime Act 2002|Proceeds of Crime Act]] (POCA) in the U.K. will expose financial and insurance businesses to prosecution.<ref name="BoldenFinancial20">{{cite web |url=https://kennedyslaw.com/thought-leadership/article/financial-lines-carriers-face-big-challenges-in-insuring-cannabis-business/ |title=Financial lines carriers face big challenges in insuring cannabis business |author=Boldon, J. |work=Kennedys |date=17 February 2020 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref> Other issues and risks viewed by the industry include<ref name="AmWINSFromSeed19" /><ref name="BoldenFinancial20" /><ref name="CTReportOnAcc22">{{cite web |url=https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/CID/1_Reports/Cannabis-Insurance-Report.pdf |format=PDF |title=Report on Access to Insurance by Connecticut Cannabis Establishments |author=Connecticut Insurance Department |publisher=State of Connecticut |date=01 January 2022 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref><ref name="ScheurleNew22">{{cite web |url=https://cannabisindustryjournal.com/feature_article/new-insurance-risks-as-cannabis-lounges-open-across-the-us/ |title=New Insurance Risks as Cannabis Lounges Open Across the US |author=Schuerle, J. |work=Cannabis Industry Journal |date=06 July 2022 |accessdate=08 July 2022}}</ref>:

* With health risks not fully understood, extensive litigation, including class action lawsuits, may ensue should cannabis users become unexpectedly ill or disabled due to unstated risks by the vendor.
* Transportation of cannabis and related equipment across various borders where it's legal in some places but not others may result in the risk of seizures and losses.
* Uncertainty remains about intellectual property law and banking, making it more difficult to produce relevant policies that help protect against theft and loss of proprietary information, product, and cash.
* Hemp-derived CBD and its legality is still a gray area, at least in the U.S., though hemp is legal, making it more difficult to separate out related risks in cannabis insurance policies.
* Vape pens and e-cigarettes used for cannabis consumption have so far carried some health hazards and risks with them, forcing many insurance carriers to exclude coverage for such products. 
* Outdoor crop coverage is scarce, and multi-state distribution coverage policies don't exist.
* Professional liability insurance for testing laboratories and dispensaries is still a growing area that requires more data and risk consideration, with some specific coverage such as "slip and fall" protection not able to be honored due to Schedule I substance exclusions in general liability policies.
* Cannabis "lounges" serving up legal cannabis products to patrons could be sued for overserving product and enabling third-party bodily injury by the patron.

====1.5.4 Data management====
{{Past, Present, and Future of Cannabis Laboratory Testing and Regulation in the United States/Overview of the cannabis industry in the United States/Other areas of concern/Data management}}